• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

XP running on a Pentium 200

S

schleppy

Member
I was bored tonight so i went through the stack of old pcs i had around and built 1 using a Pentium 200mmx CPU with 64mb ram, Asus TXP4 MB(no AGP port, just PCI and ISA slots lol..), 6.4gb WD hard drive and a Cirrus Logic 1mb vid card:roll:.

Ya i know it's a joke, I wanted to see how this baby works.

I had an older installation of XP on this 6 gig HD and had to fix/re-install it, but I was damn surprised that this old pc can run XP, and it actually works fine with this set-up.

Sure it slow as hell but it works, anyone else tried something like this?



 
Yep, I also had winxp running on a old Pentium 200, with 64mb of ram and a 3gig hard drive, slow as hell but it ran.
 
Right on, I'm glad to hear some else has tried it. It's kinda cool seeing it work, and ya it is damn slow but not too bad, Kinda makes me feel old seeing how far technology has gone but great to be part of it.
 
I had W2K running on a Pentium-100 for a while, and it was actually quite smooth. But I did have 128MB of RAM in it. I can't imagine using XP with only 64MB of RAM, it must be paging like 90% of the time, since its default physical-memory footprint with a default install of XP Pro is around 120MB, although a good portition of that is user-mode services that can be paged out, along with portions of kernel code.

But as long as you throw enough RAM in the box, even a low-end CPU is good enough for the OS itself, although modern apps may be an entirely different story. I'd have to recommend W2K for 64MB boxes, and Win98se for anything less than that though.
 
If you upped the RAM in that thing to like 256, and turned off all the cartoon graphics, it'd probably run to the point where it'd be bearable. Just don't expect to run any apps on top of it.
 
of course it works, it's x86, and 64meg is the sane low limit of memory to use for 2k/XP so yeah... slow as hell, but works 🙂

when i first started working here I had a P200 @ 250 with 64MB of RAM running Win2K.. it ran OK. I upped the RAM to 256 and it was flying (considering what it was) I now have much faster systems, but it ran perfectly fine (XP would've been worse though)
 
haha thx for the replies all, I wasn't sure if it would actually work but I have a crap load of all PCs' and parts (386,486,P120,k6 166 etc.. cpus) and the wife was using mine so i decided to build 1. I'm using a 64mb stick(pc66 sdram) but i have a 512 and 128mb but pc133. The FSB on this Asus MB only goes to 75-83 mhz, damn iffy running and old P200 on at that but at 75 it should work, it should be no problem for tha ram running at that bus.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I had W2K running on a Pentium-100 for a while, and it was actually quite smooth. But I did have 128MB of RAM in it. I can't imagine using XP with only 64MB of RAM, it must be paging like 90% of the time, since its default physical-memory footprint with a default install of XP Pro is around 120MB, although a good portition of that is user-mode services that can be paged out, along with portions of kernel code.

But as long as you throw enough RAM in the box, even a low-end CPU is good enough for the OS itself, although modern apps may be an entirely different story. I'd have to recommend W2K for 64MB boxes, and Win98se for anything less than that though.
Click to expand...

W2K with 64Mb is painful. Go above 128 and it works great.
 
For that old of a machine, I'd load W2K on it, not XP. AFAIK XP should work on 486DX 33MHz if it's given enough RAM, and HDD space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top